Acta Sci. Pol., Hortorum Cultus 13(2) 2014, 163-177
THE EFFECT OF NUTRIENT SOLUTIONS ON YIELD
AND MACRONUTRIENT STATUS OF GREENHOUSE
TOMATO (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.) GROWN
IN AEROPONIC AND ROCKWOOL CULTURE
WITH OR WITHOUT RECIRCULATION OF NUTRIENT
SOLUTION
Andrzej Komosa, Tomasz Kleiber, Bartosz Markiewicz
Poznań University of Life Sciences
Abstract. Aeroponics creates possibilities to cultivate plants without soil or substrate, obtaining the optimal yield, saving water and nutrient solutions and do not contaminate the
environment. In a three year experiment was shown that the higher total and marketable
yields of tomato cv. ‘Alboney F1’ were in cultivation in rockwool with recirculating nutrient solution. Lower yields, however being in the same significance range, were in rockwool without recirculation of nutrient solution and aeroponic culture with A-1 and A-2
nutrient solutions, but the lowest in aeroponics with A-3 nutrient solution. The saving of
nutrient solution in aeroponic culture, in relation to the cultivation in rockwool with nonrecirculating system, was 58.1%, but comparing with recirculating system 18.8%. Plants
grown in aeroponic culture with application of A-2 and A-3 nutrient solutions had higher
contents of N, P and K in leaves than cultivated in rockwool with or no recirculation and
in aeroponic with A-1 nutrient solution. All tested nutrient solutions (A-1, A-2 and A-3)
in aeroponic culture caused the higher contents of Mg in leaves than in rockwool cultivation. The highest Ca leaves contents were in plants grown in rockwool with recirculationg
nutrient solution and aeroponic culture with A-2 and A-3 nutrient solutions. Plants grown
in rockwool without recirculation of nutrient solution shown the lowest Ca contents, however there was no symptoms of blossom end rot (BER) on fruits. The yield and macronutrient status of tomato in aeroponic culture with application of A-1 nutrient solution were
similar to the plants grown in rockwool with non-recirculating standard nutrient solution
A-2.
Key words: soilless culture, plant nutrition, nutrient contents, fertigation
Corresponding author: Andrzej Komosa, Department of Plant Nutrition, Poznań University of
Life Sciences, Zgorzelecka 4, 60-198 Poznań, Poland, e-mail: [email protected]
164
A. Komosa, T. Kleiber, B. Markiewicz
INTRODUCTION
Aeroponic method of plant cultivation was defined by International Society for Soilless Culture as „a system where roots are continuously or discontinuously exposed to an
environment saturated with fine drops (a mist) of nutrient solution” [Nichols and
Christie 2002]. Plant roots are developed in two-phase root environment – liquid and
air. There is not solid phase, typical in soils and substrates. In aeroponic culture does
not occur the antagonism between water and air in the root environment. Continuously
contact with oxygen stimulates metabolic processes which have positive effect on the
development of roots and nutrient uptake [Stoner and Clawson 1997]. The unsatisfied
results obtained in cultivation of plants in hydroponic culture with immobile nutrient
solution was mainly connected with poor aeration of root environment because in one
liter of water could be solve only 8.7 mg O2 [Soffer and Burger 1988].
The advantageous effects of aeroponic culture were found for: tomato, cucumber lettuce and strawberry [Massantini 1977, Giacomelli 1989, Repetto et al. 1994], leafy
vegetables [Lim 1996, Demšar et al. 2004], muskmelon [Bode et al. 1998], potato [Sattelmacher et al. 1990, Ritter et al. 2001, Farran and Mingolo-Castel 2006], herbs and
medicinal plants [Christie and Nichols 2004, Hayden 2006], chrysanthemum [Soffer
and Burger1988, De Kreij and van der Hoeven 1996], anthurium [Fascella and Zizzo
2007], eustoma, lisianthus and zantedeschia [Christie and Nicholas 2004], Ficus benjamina L. [Soffer and Burger1988], Acacia mangium Willd [Martin-Laurent et al. 2000]
and cranberry [Barak et al. 1996].
Intermittent injection of nutrient solution decreases temperature of root environment.
This is very advantageous effect in the growing of plants in the tropical and subtropical
regions as well as in the greenhouses at summer time in the moderate climatic zone [Lee
1993, He and Lee 1998]. High temperature of root environment in the range of 30–35ºC
involves iron deficiency symptoms on leaves [He and Lee 1998], and have significant
effect on roots morphology, nutrients absorption, enzymatic and phytohormon activities
and quantitative relations between the roots and upper plant part [Tan et al. 2002].
Particularly important are studies on the application of aeroponic method for tomato
growing under glass. Biddinger et al. [1998] tested the reaction of tomato on the different levels of phosphorus in the nutrient solutions applied in aeroponic culture. It was
shown, that decreasing of concentration of phosphorus in the nutrient solution reduced
the biomass production. There are not researches on the optimal nutrient contents in
nutrient solutions for tomato growing in aeroponic system. Usually there are used the
nutrient solutions recommended for soilless culture as like as NFT (Nutrient Film Technique) or cultivation in inert media – mainly in rockwool, expanded clay or perlite
[Sonneveld and Straver 1994].
The main purpose of this study was a comparison of yield and nutrient status of tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.) grown in aeroponic culture with application of
different nutrient solutions in relation to cultivation in rockwool with or not recirculation of nutrient solution.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Acta Sci. Pol.
The effect of nutrient solutions on yield and macronutrient status...
165
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Experiments on cultivation of greenhouse tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.)
cv. ‘Alboney F1’ grown aeroponically and in rockwool with recirculating and nonrecirculating nutrient solution systems were conducted in the years 2009–2011. In aeroponic culture were tested three nutrient solutions: A-2 the standard, commonly used in
soilless culture, A-1 30% lower and A-3 30% higher concentration of nutrients than
A-2. In cultivation in rockwool with or no recirculation the standard nutrient solution
A-2 was tested (tab. 1).
Table 1. Nutrients and sodium contents in water and in nutrient solutions used in aeroponic
culture and in rockwool culture with recirculating and non-recirculating nutrient solution for greenhouse tomato cv. ‘Alboney F1’ (2009–2011)
H2O
a
2010
Aeroponic culture
2009–2011
A-2
A-3
Rockwool
cultureb
2009–2011
<14.0
<14.0
<14.0
<14.0
147.0
210.0
273.0
210.0
0.3
49.0
70.0
91.0
70.0
2.4
246.0
351.0
457.0
351.0
170.0
Nutrient
2009
2011
N-NH4
tr.a
tr.
tr.
N-NO3
3.7
0.3
0.3
P
0.3
0.7
K
1.8
3.6
A-1
mg·dm-3
Ca
57.3
69.7
61.4
119.0
170.0
221.0
Mg
13.4
15.3
14.2
59.0
84.0
110.0
84.0
S-SO4
58.3
50.7
55.6
92.0
132.0
171.0
132.0
Na
22.7
22.0
22.8
22.7
22.7
22.7
22.7
Cl
42.2
37.8
42.7
42.2
42.2
42.2
42.2
Fe
0.080
0.084
0.079
1.17
1.68
2.18
1.68
Mn
0.080
0.003
0.070
0.38
0.54
0.71
0.54
1.42–1.64
Zn
1.64
1.42
1.44
1.64
1.42
1.44
B
0.011
0.011
0.008
0.26
0.38
0.49
0.38
Cu
tr.
tr.
tr.
0.055
0.079
1.03
0.079
0.048
Mo
tr.
tr.
tr.
0.044
0.048
0.062
HCO3-
277.5
242.8
265.8
n.d.c
n.d.
n.d.
n.d.
pH
EC
(mS·cm-1)
7.00
7.21
7.01
5.50
5.50
5.50
5.50
0.73
0.71
0.72
2.60
3.00
3.40
3.00
tr. – traces, b recirculating and non-recirculating nutrient solution system, c n.d. not determined
Cultivation of tomato in aeroponics was conducted in gathers which had a shape of
U letter with dimensions: 11 cm width, 15 cm height and 14 m long. There were lined
with black and white (outside) foil. On the bottom of the gathers the pipes (ϕ 12 mm)
were placed with foggers in a distance at 50 cm. On the top of the gathers, in a distance
of 50 cm between foggers, the wire hangers were put with the square holes size 10 × 10 cm,
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Hortorum Cultus 13(2) 2014
166
A. Komosa, T. Kleiber, B. Markiewicz
to which the rockwool cubs (10 × 10 × 7.5 cm) with tomato seedlings were placed. The
gathers with the rockwool tubes from the top were covered with black and white (outside) foil to isolate influx of light to the root environment. During days the nutrient
solution was injected every 15 minutes for 15 seconds (for young plants) and 30 minutes for 30 seconds (for the mature plants). At nights the nutrient solutions was applied
every 60 minutes for 60 seconds to prevent drying of the roots. The excess of nutrient
solution not uptake by plants, after filtration and disinfection with the UV irradiation
(253.7 nm), was collected in the tank, mixed with the rest of nutrient solution and reused. There were constructed 3 separated installations for growing of tomatoes with
application of 3 nutrient solutions A-1, A-2 and A-3.
Nutrient solutions for aeroponic cultivation were prepared in 1000 liters tanks from
the 100-times concentrated stock solutions A and B using proportional diluter “Dosatron” in concentrations pointed out in table 1. For preparing the nutrient solutions were
used the following fertilizers, tank A: HNO3 (38%), KNO3 (13% N-NO3, 38.2% K),
Ca(NO3·2H2O+NH4NO3 (0.8% N-NH4, 14.7% N-NO3, 19.6% Ca), Mg(NO3)2·6H2O
(11.0% N-NO3, 9.5% Mg), Fe-DTPA (Librel FeDP7 7% Fe), tank B: HNO3 (38%),
KH2PO4 (22.3% P, 28.2% K), K2SO4 (44.8% K, 17.0% S-SO4), MgSO4·7H2O (9.5% Mg,
12.7% S), MnSO4·H2O (32.3% Mn), CuSO4·5H2O (25.6% Cu), Na2B4O7·10H2O (11.3% B)
and Na2MoO4·2H2O (39.6% Mo) (zinc from water 1.42–1.64 mg Zn·dm-3, tab. 1). Nutrient solutions were acidified to pH 5.50.
In cultivation of tomato in rockwool two systems were tested – with recirculating and non-recirculating nutrient solution. Plants were grown in rockwool slabs
(100 × 15 × 7.5 cm). The standard nutrient solution (A-2) recommended for tomato
growing in rockwool was used (tab. 1). In the non-recirculating system the nutrient
solution was prepared from the stock solutions being in containers A and B with nitric
acid acidifying to pH 5.50 (similar as in the aeroponic system). Dilution of 100-folt
nutrient stock solution was done by diluter (Dosatron). In the recirculating system, the
nutrient solution was prepared with the use of a fertilizer mixer (ScanGrow 10). Drain
water flowing out from the rockwool slabs was collected in a container and disinfected
by UV irradiation (253.7 nm), diluted with tap water (36–44% disinfected drain water
and 56–64% of tap water) and enriched with the lacking macro and micronutrients,
which were in A and B stock solutions in a 100-fold concentration. Nutrient reaction
was adjusted to pH 5.50 with nitric acid (38%) from the tank C.
The same fertilizers were used in growing of plants in rockwool with and without
recirculation as like as in aeroponic culture. Nutrient solution in recirculting and nonrecirculating systems were applied 10–15 times per day in the rates of 135 to
210 ml·plant-1, depending on the growing season and plant development. The first fertigation rate was applied 2 hours after sunrise and the last one 2 hours before sunset, with
intervals 60–120 minutes. The saving of nutrient solution, both in rockwool and
aeroponic cultures, was estimated by the measuring of water and nutrient solutions
expenditure using water meters. In one rockwool slab, in both systems, were grown
2 plants. Density of plants grown in rockwool and in aeroponic culture was 2.7 plants
per m2. Plants were cultivated on 17 clusters. The experiments were done in 7 replications, with 8 plants in one replication.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Acta Sci. Pol.
The effect of nutrient solutions on yield and macronutrient status...
167
Seeds of tomato cv. ‘Alboney F1’ were sown into „multiblocks” of rockwool on the
March 1 each year. After 2–3 weeks plants were set to the cubes of the rockwool
(10 × 10 × 7.5 cm) and 3–4 weeks later (around April 15 each year) they were grown in
the main experiment. During cultivation of seedlings the A-1 nutrient solution was applied. Experiments were terminated on the end of September each year.
Biological protection was applied with the using of predacious insects Encarsia
formosa (Gahan) and Macrolophus melanothoma (Costa). Pollination was supported
by Bombus terrestris L. Once a week, fruits were collected and sorted into classes
(ϕ in cm): I > 10.2, II 10.2–8.2, III 8.2–6.7, IV 6.7–5.7, V 5.7–4.7, <4.7 and separately
invalid fruits. The marketable yield included classes I–V.
In the mid of June, July and August, the 8th or 9th leaf from the top of one plant was
sampled for chemical analyses. One average sample included 8 leaves collected from
8 plants. The mineralization of leaves was done by the following methods: N in sulphuric and sulphosalicilic acid and reduction of N-NO3 to N-NH4 with sodium trisulphate and an addition of selenium, P, K, Ca and Mg in sulphuric acid, sulphur – dry
mineralization in muffle furnace with HNO3 and Mg(NO3)2. After mineralization, the
following methods were used: N-total – by Kjeldahl, P – colorimetrically with ammonium molibdate, K, Ca – photometrically on flame photometer, Mg, AAS, S – ButtersChenery method [IUNG 1972].
Results on the yield and nutrient contents in leaves were statistically analyzed using
Duncan’s test (α 0.05).
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Comparison of total and marketable fruit yields of tomato cv. ‘Admiro F1’ grown in
aeroponic culture with application of A-1, A-2 and A-3 nutrient solutions in relation to
cultivation in rockwool with or no recirculation of nutrient solution systems is given in
table 2 and 3. It was shown that significant highest total fruit yield was in cultivation of
tomato in rockwool with recirculating nutrient solution (tab. 2). The lower total yield,
was in rockwool without recirculation and aeroponic culture with application of A-1 and
A-2 nutrient solutions but the lowest in aeroponics with A-3 nutrient solution.
The effect of cultivation methods and nutrient solutions on marketable yield was
similar to the results obtained for the total yield (tab. 3). The highest marketable yield
was in cultivation of tomato in rockwool with recirculting nutrient solution. The lower,
however being in the same significance range, was in cultivation in rockwool without
recirculation and aeroponic system with application of A-1 and A-2 nutrient solutions.
The A-3 nutrient solution caused significant reduction of yield.
Summing up, it could be stated, that total and marketable yields of fruits obtained in
aeroponic culture of tomato with application of A-1 and A-2 nutrient solutions were the
same as in the cultivation in rockwool without recirculation of nutrient solution, however the highest yields were in recirculating nutrient solution. The average decreasing of
the total yield, in relation to recirculating system, was: 5.3% for non-recirculating system, 12.7% for aeroponic A-1, 12.2% for A-2% and 28.6% for A-3. In the case of marketable yield this reduction was (respectively): 9.5%, 15.4%, 16.5% and 38.4%.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Hortorum Cultus 13(2) 2014
168
A. Komosa, T. Kleiber, B. Markiewicz
Table 2. Total fruit yield of tomato cv. ‘Alboney F1’ in aeroponic and rockwool culture with
recirculating and non-recirculating nutrient solution (2009–2011)
Cultivation method
2009
2011
x
7508 h–j
8911 łm
8547 d
2010
-1
g·plant
Recirculation
9223 m
No recirculation
8854 l–m
6904 c–h
8503 k–m
8087 cd
Aeroponic (A-1)
8278 j–ł
6698 b–h
7395 f–j
7457 bc
Aeroponic (A-2)
8023 i–ł
7020 e–h
7463 g–j
7502 bc
Aeroponic (A-3)
6906 d–h
5527 a
5865 ab
6099 a
x
8257 c
6731 a
7627 b
-
Values marked with the same letter did not differ significantly
It should be noted, that average saving of nutrient solutions in aeroponic culture, independently on the nutrient solutions, in relation to the non-recircultaing system, was
58.1%, but for recirculating system – 18.8%. It is also important statement, that the total
and marketable fruit yields produced by the plants in aeroponic system A-1 were obtained with reducing by 30% concentration of nutrients in the nutrient solution comparing with A-2 nutrient solution applied in rockwool cultivation without recirculation.
Table 3. Marketable fruit yield of tomato cv. ‘Alboney F1’ in aeroponic and rockwool culture
with recirculating and non-recirculating nutrient solution (2009–2011)
Cultivation method
2009
2010
2011
x
7794 d
-1
g·plant
Recirculation
8937 ł
7106 f–i
7340 h–j
No recirculation
8446 lł
6025 b–e
6681 e–h
7051 c
Aeroponic (A-1)
7862 j–l
6358 d–f
5541 b
6587 bc
Aeroponic (A-2)
7479 h–k
6480 d–g
5548 bc
6502 bc
Aeroponic (A-3)
5786 b–d
4221 a
4386 a
4798 a
x
7702 b
6038 a
5899 a
Note: see Table 2
There is a lack of modern study on the efficiency of tomato cultivation in aeroponic
culture. Leoni et al. [1994] showed a high yield of tomato grown aeroponically, as the
effect of multiplication of cycles of cultivation. This system was called High Density
Aeroponic System (HDAS). Nichols and Christie [2002] indicated the acceptable yield
of tomato grown in aeroponic system in comparison with the modern greenhouse technologies. They considered that in aeroponic cultivation of tomato and cucumber is possible to increase yield up to 25% by eliminating the period from transplanting to harvest.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Acta Sci. Pol.
The effect of nutrient solutions on yield and macronutrient status...
169
More experiments were done on the comparison of yield of tomato grown in rockwool with and no recirculation of nutrient solution. No significant differences were
found by Hardgreve [1993], Zekki et al. [1966] and De Kreij et al. [2004]. In study by
Komosa et al. [2011] although there was no significant differences, then total and marketable yield was higher by 5.4–5.6% in the non-recirculating nutrient solution system.
It was not confirmed by the date presented in this research. As describe earlier, the total
and marketable yields were highest in the recirculation system. Wide evaluation of plant
yield obtained in soilless culture systems with an emphasis on its quality and the need to
use closed fertigation systems in horticultural practice was presented in the review by
Gruda [2009].
In our study the saving of nutrient solution in the recirculating system reached
48.3%, in relation to the non-recirculationg one. Komosa et al. [2011] revealed that in
growing of tomato in rockwool with recirculation system was saved 42.5% nutrient
solution whereas Dhakal et al. [2005] pointed on 31.5%. These results are in agreement
with our results.
Table 4. Nitrogen and phosphorus contents in leaves of tomato cv. ‘Alboney F1’ in aeroponic
and rockwool culture with recirculating and non-recirculating nutrient solution (the 8th
or 9th leaf from the top; means from 2009–2011)
% N in
leaves d.m.
% P in
leaves d.m.
Cultivation method
I*
II
III
x
recirculation
4.02 b-g
3.93 a-e
3.88 a-c
3.94 a
no recirculation
4.05 b-g
3.78 a
3.82 ab
3.88 a
aeroponic (A-1)
3.91 a-d
3.95 a-f
3.94 a-f
3.93 a
aeroponic (A-2)
4.20 g
4.11 c-g
4.04 b-g
4.12 b
aeroponic (A-3)
4.13 d-g
4.18 fg
4.17 e-g
4.16 b
x
4.06 a
3.99 a
3.97 a
recirculation
0.84 ef
0.73 cd
0.51 a
no recirculation
0.86 f
0.76 de
0.72 cd
0.78 b
aeroponic (A-1)
0.95 g
0.88 fg
0.62 b
0.82 b
0.69 a
aeroponic (A-2)
1.15 i
1.04 h
0.66 bc
0.95 d
aeroponic (A-3)
1.07 h
0.91 fg
0.67 b-d
0.88 c
x
0.97 c
0.86 b
0.64 a
*
I, II, III – mid of June, July and August; values marked with the same letter did not differ significantly
Average content of nitrogen in leaves did not differ significantly in plants grown in
rockwool with recirculating and non-recirculating nutrient solution and in aeroponic
culture with application of A-1 nutrient solution (tab. 4). The increase of nitrogen content was appeared after application of A-2 and A-3 nutrient solutions. It could be emphasized that application of A-1 nutrient solution in aeroponic culture with reduced by
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Hortorum Cultus 13(2) 2014
170
A. Komosa, T. Kleiber, B. Markiewicz
30% of nitrogen contents caused the same status of nitrogen in leaves as in growing in
rockwool with and without recirculation in which the standard solution (A-2) was applied.
There was a tendency to lowering of nitrogen contents in leaves of tomato grown in
rockwool with and without recirculation from the mid of July to the mid of August. It
was not visible in aeroponic culture with the exception of A-2 nutrient solution. Komosa at al.[2011] found significant decreasing of nitrogen content in leaves at this period in growing of tomato in rockwool with and no recirculation. Chohura et al. [2004]
in cultivation of tomato in rockwool without recirculation revealed that content of nitrogen in leaves increased from the mid of June to the mid of July and then decreased by
the mid of August.
Nitrogen status in leaves of tomato grown in rockwool with or no recirculation was
3.78–4.05% N in dry matter (d. m.) and in aeroponics (A-1 to A-3) 3.91–4.20% N d. m.
These contents correspond with the standard range for tomato (tab. 5). De Kreij et
al. [1990] as the standard value indicated on 2.80–4.20% N, Haifa 3.5–4.0% N, Campbell [2000] 3.5–5.0% N and Hill Laboratories 4.5–5.5% N in d. m. of leaves.
Table 5. Standard contents of macronutrients in leaves of greenhouse tomato according to various authors
Nutrient
De Kreij et al.
[1990]a
whole period
Haifab
before fruiting
during fruiting
Campbell [2000]c
whole period
Hill laboratoriesd
first fruit mature
% in leaves d. m.
N
2.80–4.20
4.0–5.0
3.5–4.0
3.5–5.0
4.5–5.5
P
0.31–0.47
0.5–0.8
0.4–0.6
0.30–0.65
0.4–0.7
K
3.50–5.08
3.5–4.0
2.8–4.0
3.5–4.5
4.0–6.0
Ca
1.60–3.20
0.9–1.8
1.0–2.0
1.0–3.0
1.2–2.0
Mg
0.36–0.49
0.5–0.8
0.4–1.0
0.35–1.0
0.4–0.7
S
1.28
0.4–0.8
0.4–0.8
0.2–1.0
0.6–2.0
a
– the young fully developed leaves, b – the newest fully expanded leaf below the last open
flower cluster, c – the most recent mature and fully expanded leaf, without petiole and midrib,
usually the 3rd or 4th leaf from the top, d – youngest mature leaf
It was found significant effect of cultivation methods and nutrient solution on phosphorus content in leaves (tab. 4). The lowest content was in growing of tomato in rockwool with recirculation of nutrient solution. The increase of phosphorus content was
found in cultivation in rockwool without recirculation and was similar as in aeroponic
culture with application of A-1 nutrient solution. Increasing concentration of phosphorus in nutrient solution A-2 and A-3 applied in aeroponics enhanced the phosphorus
contents in leaves. Similarly as for nitrogen, the reduced content of phosphorus by 30%
in A-1 nutrient solution applied in aeroponics caused the same result in phosphorus
nutrient status as A-2 applied in rockwool culture without recirculation. Biddinger et al.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Acta Sci. Pol.
The effect of nutrient solutions on yield and macronutrient status...
171
[1998] found that decrease of phosphorus concentration in the nutrient solution resulted
in reducing of biomass production. Insufficient status of phosphorus decreased net CO2
assimilation and stomatal conductance. Phosphorus concentrations in roots and shoots
decreased with lowering of phosphorus concentration in the nutrient solution.
The content of phosphorus in leaves, in cultivation of tomato in rockwool and aeroponics, was declined from the mid of June to the mid of August. It was particularly
evident between the mid of July and mid of August (tab. 4). This tendency was not
indicated in previous study by Komosa et al. [2011]. They did not find significant
changes in phosphorus content in leaves of tomato cultivated in rockwool.
The phosphorus content in leaves of tomato grown in rockwool with or no recirculation was 0.51–0.86% P but in aeroponics (A-1 to A-3) 0.61–1.15% P in d. m. Generally,
in aeroponic culture the phosphorus content was higher than in rockwool. According the
data presented in table 5, the contents of phosphorus in leaves in the I and II terms (mid
of June and mid of July) was higher than recommended for tomato. The standard range,
according to De Kreij et al. [1990] was 0.31–0,47% P, Haifa 0.4–0.6% P, Campbell
[2000] 0.30–0.65% P and Hill Laboratories 0.4–0.7% P in d. m. of leaves. Only in the
III term (mid of August) nutritional status of tomato with phosphorus cold be considered as the standard. It seems that phosphorus content in the nutrient solutions amounting: 49.0 mg P (A-1), 70.0 mg P (A-2) and 91.0 mg P·dm-3 (A-3), could be much reduced.
Table 6. Potassium and calcium contents in leaves of tomato cv. ‘Alboney F1’ in aeroponic and
rockwool culture with recirculating and non-recirculating nutrient solution (the 8th or 9th
leaf from the top; means from 2009–2011)
Cultivation method
I*
II
III
x
recirculation
4.85 b–e
4.56 a–c
4.47 ab
4.63 a
% K in
leaves d.m.
% Ca in
leaves d.m.
no recirculation
5.28 e–g
4.94 c–f
5.46 g
5.23 c
aeroponic (A-1)
4.56 a–c
4.69 a–c
4.33 a
4.53 a
aeroponic (A-2)
4.57 a–c
4.90 b–f
5.21 d–g
4.89 b
aeroponic (A-3)
4.78 a–d
5.32 fg
5.59 g
5.23 c
x
4.81 a
4.88 ab
5.01 b
recirculation
3.31 a–c
4.25 e–g
4.75 fg
4.10 c
no recirculation
2.87 a
3.96 c–f
3.79 b–e
3.54 a
aeroponic (A-1)
3.39 a–d
3.13 ab
4.45 e–g
3.66 ab
aeroponic (A-2)
4.21 d–f
2.81 a
5.04 g
4.02 bc
aeroponic (A-3)
4.15 d–f
4.14 d–f
4.18 d–f
4.16 c
x
3.59 a
3.66 a
4.44 b
Note: see Table 4
The lowest average potassium content in leaves was in rockwool cultivation with recirculating nutrient solution similarly as in aeroponic culture with A-1 nutrient solution
(tab. 6). Plants grown in rockwool without recirculation and in aeroponics with applica_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Hortorum Cultus 13(2) 2014
172
A. Komosa, T. Kleiber, B. Markiewicz
tion of A-2 and A-3 nutrient solutions had higher potassium contents than in recirculating system. It could be stated that increasing potassium concentration in the nutrient
solutions applied in aeroponic culture resulted in the upraising of this nutrient in leaves.
Plants grown with the decreased by 30% concentration of potassium in A-1 nutrient
solution applied in aeroponics shown the same potassium status as in cultivation in
rockwool with recirculating system. Plants in non-recirculating system and in aeroponics with A-3 nutrient solution had the highest potassium content in leaves.
During vegetation period content of potassium in leaves did not change significantly
in rockwool cultivation and in aeroponic culture with A-1 nutrient solution but the increase was found in aeroponic system with A-2 and A-3 nutrient solutions. Komosa et
al. [2011] stated that in growing of tomato in rockwool with and without recirculation
the content of potassium in leaves significantly decreased from the mid of June to the
mid of August.
There is shortage of study on the efficiency of potassium nutrition in aeroponics.
More information is on growing tomato in rockwool with recirculating and nonrecirculating system. In our study, the higher potassium content was in plant grown in
non-recirculating system. The same result was obtained by Komosa et al. [2011].
It could be stated that plants grown in recirculating nutrient solution contained
4.47–4.85% K, without recirculation 4.94–5.46% K, in aeroponic culture with A-1
4.33–4.69% K, A-2 4.57–5.21% K and A-3 4.78–5.59% K in d. m. of leaves shown
sufficient or high nutritional potassium status (tab. 5). The standard range, according
to De Kreij et al. [1990] was 3.50–5.08% K, Haifa 2.8–4.0% K, Campbell [2000]
3.5–4.5% and Hill Laboratories 4.0–6.0% K in d. m. of leaves.
The content of calcium was differentiated (tab. 6). The lowest calcium leaves contents was in non-recirculating nutrient system and in aeroponic culture with A-1 nutrient
solution, however there were no symptoms of blossom end rot (BER) on the fruits.
Plants grown in recircultaing system and aeroponic culture with A-2 and A-3 nutrient
solutions showed the higher content of calcium in leaves. The increasing of calcium
concentration in the nutrient solutions used in aeroponics resulted in the enhancing of
calcium contents in leaves. Similarly as in the study by Komosa et al. [2011] calcium
leaves content was higher in tomato grown in recirculating than in non-recirculationg
system. The calcium contents in leaves significantly increased between the mid of July
and mid of August.
Plants grown in recirculating nutrient solution contained 3.31–4.75% Ca, without
recirculation 2.87–3.96% Ca, in aeroponic culture with A-1 3.13–4.45% Ca, A-2
2.81–5.04% Ca and A-3 4.14–4.18% Ca in d. m. of leaves shown standard or high nutritional potassium status (tab. 6). The standard range, according to De Kreij et al. [1990]
was 1.60–3.20% Ca, Haifa 1.0–2.0% Ca, Campbell [2000] 1.0–3.0% Ca and Hill Laboratories 1.2–2.0% Ca in d. m. of leaves (tab. 5). It could be stated that nutrition status of
plants in calcium was sufficient or high. It appears that concentration of calcium in the
nutrient solutions A-2 (170.0 mg Ca·dm-3) used for growing tomato in rockwool with
and without recirculation as well as in aeroponic system with A-2 (170.0 mg Ca·dm-3)
and A-3 (210.0 mg Ca·dm-3) nutrient solutions could be reduced.
Magnesium content in leaves of plants cultivated in aeroponic culture was higher
than in rockwool (tab. 7). The increase of magnesium content in the nutrient solutions
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Acta Sci. Pol.
The effect of nutrient solutions on yield and macronutrient status...
173
did not influence on the level of magnesium in leaves. It was not found differences in
leaves magnesium content between recirculating and non-recirculating nutrient solution
systems as well as in growing period. In the study by Komosa et al [2011] significant
higher content of magnesium in leaves was in tomato grown in recirculating system.
Similarly as shown by Chohura et al [2004] there was not distinct changes in magnesium contents between the mid of July and mid of August in rockwool cultivation without recirculation.
Estimating the nutritional magnesium status it could be stated that plants grown in
recirculating nutrient solution (containing 0.80–0.88% Mg in leaves d. m.) and without
recirculation (0.74–0.85% Mg) shown standard magnesium status according values
recommended by Haifa 0.4–1.0% Mg and Campbell [2000] 0.35–1.0% Mg or high
nutrition status by De Kreij et al. [1990] 0.36–0.49% Mg and Hill Laboratories
0.4–0.7% Mg in d. m. of leaves (tab. 5). Magnesium nutrient status for aeroponic
culture with application A-1 (1.15–1.20% Mg), A-2 (1.16–1.30% Mg) and A-3
(1.17–1.30% Mg in d. m. of leaves) was high according all authors and data presented
in Table 5. This indicates on the possibility of reducing magnesium contents in the nutrient solutions used in aeroponic culture which were: A-1 59.0 mg, A-2 84.0 mg and
A-3 110 mg Mg·dm-3 (tab. 1).
Table 7. Magnesium and sulfur contents in leaves of tomato cv. ‘Alboney F1’ in aeroponic and
rockwool culture with recirculating and non-recirculating nutrient solution (the 8th or 9th
leaf from the top; means from 2009–2011)
Cultivation method
I
II
III
x
recirculation
0.80 a
0.82 a
0.88 a
0.83 a
% Mg in
leaves d.m.
% S in leaves
d.m.
no recirculation
0.85 a
0.74 a
0.76 a
0.78 a
aeroponic (A-1)
1.19 b
1.15 b
1.20 b
1.18 b
aeroponic (A-2)
1.30 b
1.16 b
1.24 b
1.23 b
aeroponic (A-3)
1.30 b
1.17 b
1.20 b
1.22 b
x
1.09 b
1.01 a
1.06 ab
recirculation
1.02 a
1.07 a
0.96 a
1.02 a
no recirculation
1.14 a
1.07 a
0.91 a
1.04 a
aeroponic (A-1)
1.15 a
1.13 a
0.91 a
1.06 a
aeroponic (A-2)
1.06 a
1.08 a
1.09 a
1.08 a
aeroponic (A-3)
1.12 a
1.13 a
1.01 a
1.09 a
x
1.10 b
1.10 b
0.98 a
Note: see Table 4
It was not found the diversity of sulfur content in leaves of tomato grown in rockwool and in aeroponics (tab. 7). It is worth emphasizing that widely increased
concentration of sulfur in the nutrient solutions (A-1 92.0 mg S-SO4, A-2 132.0 mg
S-SO4 and A-3 171.0 mg S-SO4·dm-3) did not change significantly the sulfur content in
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Hortorum Cultus 13(2) 2014
174
A. Komosa, T. Kleiber, B. Markiewicz
leaves. It was stable from the mid of June to the mid of July and then was a tendency to
its lowering to the mid of August. Komosa et al. [2011] did not find significant differences in rockwool cultivation with and no recirculation. Chohura et al. [2004] indicated
that dynamics of sulfur in tomato leaves was modified by the pH of nutrient solution.
Plants grown in rockwool with recirculating nutrient solution (leaves contained
0.96–1.07% S), without recirculation (0.91–1.14% S) and in aeroponic culture with A-1
(0.91–1.15% S), A-2 (1.06–1.09% S) and A-3 (1.01–1.13% S in d. m. of leaves) shown
a standard sulfur nutrition according to Hill Laboratories (recommended 0.6–2.0% S)
(tab. 5). According to Campbell [2000] (recommended 0.2–1.0% S in d. m.) the nutritional status could be defined as standard or high. Comparing with the range by Haifa
(0.4–0.8% S) the nutrition level was high. De Kreij et al. [1990] as the satisfactory level
pointed on 1.28% S in d. m. of leaves.
CONCLUSIONS
1. Comparison of total and marketable yields of tomato grown in rockwool with recirculationg and non-recirculating nutrient solution system and aeroponic culture with
application of A-1, A-2 and A-3 nutrient solutions indicated that the higher yields were
in cultivation in rockwool with recirculating nutrient solution. Lower total and marketable yields, being within the same significance range, were in growing of tomato in
rockwool with non-recirculating nutrient solution and aeroponic culture with application
A-1 and A-2 nutrient solutions. The lowest yields were in aeroponic culture with A-3
nutrient solution.
2. The saving of nutrient solution in aeroponic culture, independently on the tested
nutrient solutions A-1, A-2 and A-3, in relation to the growing of tomato in rockwool
with non-recirculating system, was 58.1%. Comparing aeroponics to rockwool culture
with recirculating system the saving was 18.8% of nutrient solution.
3. Plants grown in aeroponic culture with application of A-2 and A-3 nutrient solutions had higher contents of nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium in leaves than cultivated in rockwool with and no recirculation and aeroponic culture with A-1 nutrient
solution. All tested nutrient solutions (A-1, A-2 and A-3) in aeroponic culture caused
the higher contents of magnesium in leaves than in rockwool cultivation with or no
recirculation. It was found not a significant effect of cultivation method and the nutrient
solutions on sulfur contents in leaves of tomato.
4. Content of calcium in leaves was modified by the cultivation method and nutrient
solutions. The highest calcium leaves content was in plants grown in rockwool with
recirculationg nutrient solution and aeroponic culture with A-2 and A-3 nutrient solutions. Plants grown in rockwool with non-recirculating system shown the lowest calcium contents in leaves, however there was no symptoms of blossom end rot (BER) on
the fruits.
5. Increasing concentration of nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium in the nutrient solutions A-1, A-2 and A-3 applied in aeroponic culture resulted in the increase of these
nutrients in leaves of tomato. In the case of calcium significant increase was shown only
in leaves of plant fed with A-3 nutrient solution. Contents of magnesium in leaves did
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Acta Sci. Pol.
The effect of nutrient solutions on yield and macronutrient status...
175
not change under the influence of increasing concentration of this nutrient in the nutrient solutions A-1, A-2 and A-3 applied in aeroponics.
6. The yield and macronutrient status of tomato in aeroponic culture with application
of A-1 nutrient solution was similar to the plants grown in rockwool with nonrecirculating standard nutrient solution A-2.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The research financed by the National Science Center of Poland from the resources
on science as the research project N N310 085 435 conducted in the years of 2008–2011
REFERENCES
Barak P., Smith J.D., Krueger A.R., Peterson L.A., 1996. Measurement of short-term nutrient
uptake rates in cranberry by aeroponics. Plant Cell Environ. 19(2), 237–242.
Biddinger E.J., Liu Ch., Joly R.J., Raghothama K.G., 1998. Physiological and molecular responses of aeroponically grown tomato plants to phosphorus deficiency. J. Amer. Soc. Hort.
Sci. 123, 330–333.
Stoltzfus R.M.B., Taber H.G., Aiello A.S., 1998. Effect of increasing root-zone temperature on
growth and nutrient uptake by ‘Gold Star’ muskmelon plants. J. Plant Nutr. 21(2), 321–328.
Campbell C.R., 2000. Reference sufficiency ranges for plant analysis in the Southern Region of
The United States. Southern Cooperative Series Bulletin 394, 79–80.
Chohura P., Komosa A., Kołota E., 2004. Wpływ pH pożywek na dynamikę zawartości makroelementów w liściach pomidora szklarniowego uprawianego w wełnie mineralnej. Rocz. AR
Pozn., 356, Ogrodnictwo 37, 29–35.
Christie C.B., Nichols M.A., 2004. Aeroponics – a production system and research tool. South
Pacific Soilless Culture Conference, Acta Hort. 648, 185–190.
De Kreij C., Runia W.T., van der Burg A.M.M., 2004. Metabolites, their decomposition, production
of tomato and bioassays, from open and closed rockwool system. Acta Hort. 644, 425–432.
De Kreij C., Sonneveld C., Warmenhoven M.D., Straver N., 1990. Guide values for nutrient
element contents of vegetable and flowers under glass. Voedingsoplossingen glastuinbouw 15,
1–59.
De Kreij C., van der Hoeven B., 1996. Effect of humic substances, pH and its control on growth
of chrysanthemum in aeroponics. Proc. of the 9th Int. Cong. on Soilless Cult., ISOSC, St Helier, Jersey, 12–19.04., 207–230.
Demšar J., Osvald J., Vodnik D., 2004. The effect of light-dependent application of nitrate on the
growth of aeroponically grown lettuce (Lactuca sativa L.). J. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. 129(4),
570–575.
Dhakal U., Salokhe V.M., Tantau H.J., Max J., 2005. Development of a greenhouse recicling
system for tomato production in humid tropics. Agricultural Engineering International: the
CIGR Ejournal. Manuscript BC 05 008. Vol. 7. October, 1–16.
Farran I., Mingolo-Castel A.M., 2006. Potato minituber production using aeroponics: Effect of
plant density and harvesting intervals. Amer. J. Potato Res., 47–53.
Fascella G., Zizzo G.V., 2007. Preliminary results of aeroponic cultivation of Anthurium andreanum for cut flower production. VIII Int. Symp. on Protected Cultivation in Mild Winter Climates, ISHS Acta Hort. 747, 233–240.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Hortorum Cultus 13(2) 2014
176
A. Komosa, T. Kleiber, B. Markiewicz
Giacomelli G.A., 1989. Fog for aeroponic plant production. Soil. Cult. 1, 13–22.
Gruda N., 2009. Do soilless culture systems have an influence on product quality of vegetables? J.
Appl. Bot. Food Qual. 82, 141–147.
Hardgreve M.R., 1993. Recirculation system for greenhouse vegetables. Acta Hort. 342, 82–87.
Haifa Chemicals. Tomato crop guide: Leaf analysis standards. http://www.haifa-group.com.
Hill Laboratories. Crop guide. Tomato. New Zealand. http://www.hill-laboratories.com.
IUNG, 1972. Methods of chemical analysis for the experimental stations of agriculture. Part II.
Plant analyses. Institute of Soil Science and Plant Cultivation (IUNG), Puławy, 25–83.
He J., Lee S.K., 1998. Growth and phothosynthetic response of 3 aeroponically growth lettuce
cultivars (Lactuca sativa L.) to different rootzone temperatures and growth irradiances under
tropical aerial conditions. J. Hort. Sci. Biotech. 73(2), 173–180.
Hayden A.L., 2006. Aeroponic nad hydroponic systems for medicinal herb, rhizome and root
crops. HortSci. 41(3), 536–538.
Komosa A., Piróg J., Weber Z., Markiewicz B., 2011. Comparison of yield, nutrient solution
changes and nutritional status of greenhouse tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.) grown in
recirculating and non-recirculating nutrient solution systems. J. Plant Nutr. 34(10), 1473–1488.
Lee S.K., 1993. Aeroponic system as a possible alternative for crop production in Singapore.
Commonwealth Agricultural Digest. 3(1), 1–14.
Leoni S., Pisanu B., Grudina R., 1994. A new system of tomato greenhouse cultivation: High
density aeroponic system (HDAS). Acta Hort. 361, 210–217.
Lim M., 1996. Trials with aeroponics for the cultivation of leafy vegetables. Proc. of the 9th Int.
Cong. on Soilless Cult., ISOSC, St Helier, Jersey, 12–19.04., 265–272.
Martin-Laurent F., Tham F.Y., Lee S.K., He J., Diem H.G., 2000. Field assessment of aeroponically grown and nodulated Acacia mangium. Australian J. Bot. 48, 109–114.
Massantini F., 1977. The light and dark sides of aeroponics. Soil. Cult. 1(11), 85–96.
Nichols M.A., Christie C.B., 2002. Continuous production of greenhouse crops using aeroponics.
Proc. IS on Trop. Subtrop. Greenhouses. Eds. S. Chen and T.T. Lin. Acta Hort. 578, 289–291.
Repetto A., Cadinu M., Leoni S., 1994. The effect of plant position on root development and
vegetative growth in aeroponic lettuce. Acta Hort. 361, 603–611.
Ritter E., Angulo B., Riga P., Herran J., Relloso J., San Jose M., 2001. Comparison of hydroponic
and aeroponic cultivation systems for the production of potato minitubers. Potato Res.
44(2001), 127–135.
Sattelmacher B., Marschner H., Kühne R., 1990. Effects of the temperature of the rooting zone on
the growth and development of roots of potato (Solanum tuberosum). Ann. Bot. 65, 27–36.
Soffer H., Burger D.W., 1988. Effects of dissolved oxygen concentrations in aero-hydroponics on
the formation and growth of adventitious roots. J. Amer. Hort. Sci. 113(2), 218–221.
Sonneveld C., Straver N.B., 1994. Nutrient solution for vegetables and flowers grown in water or
substrates. Research Station for Floriculture and Glasshouse Vegetables. Aalsmeer, Naaldwijk,
The Netherlands, Series: Voedingspolossingen Glastijnbouw, 8, 45 pp.
Stoner R.J., Clawson J.M., 1997. A high performance, gravity insensitive, enclosed aeroponic
system for food production in space. Principal Investigator, NASA SBIR NAS10-98030.
Tan L.P., He J., Lee S.K., 2002. Effects of root-zone temperature on the root development and
nutrient uptake of Lactuca sativa L. ‘Panama’ grown in aeroponic system in the tropics. J.
Plant Nutr. 25(2), 297–314.
Zekki H., Gauthier L., Gosselin A., 1966. Growth, production and mineral composition of hydroponically cultivated greenhouse tomatoes, with or without nutrient solution recycling. J. Amer.
Soc. Hort. Sci. 12, 1082–1088.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Acta Sci. Pol.
The effect of nutrient solutions on yield and macronutrient status...
177
WPŁYW POŻYWEK NA PLON I STAN ODŻYWIENIA POMIDORA
(Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.) UPRAWIANEGO W SZKLARNI METODĄ
AEROPONICZNĄ I W WEŁNIE MINERALNEJ BEZ RECYRKULACJI
I Z RECYRKULACJĄ POŻYWKI
Streszczenie. Aeroponika umożliwia uprawę roślin bez gleby lub podłoża. Pozwala też na
uzyskiwanie optymalnego plonu, zmniejszenie zużycia wody i pożywek oraz niezanieczyszczanie środowiska. W 3-letnim doświadczeniu wykazano, że największy plon ogólny i handlowy pomidora odmiany ‘Alboney F1’ uzyskano w uprawie w wełnie mineralnej
z recyrkulacją pożywki. Niższe plony, będące jednak w tym samym przedziale istotności,
stwierdzono w uprawie w wełnie mineralnej bez recyrkulacji pożywki oraz w aeroponice
z zastosowaniem pożywek A-1 i A-2, natomiast najniższe w uprawie aeroponicznej z pożywką A-3. Oszczędność pożywki w uprawie aeroponicznej w stosunku do uprawy w
wełnie mineralnej bez recyrkulacji wynosiła 58,1%, a w stosunku do systemu recyrkulacyjnego 18,8%. Rośliny uprawiane aeroponicznie z zastosowaniem pożywek A-2 i A-3
wykazywały większą zawartość N, P i K w liściach niż w uprawie w wełnie mineralnej
bez i z recyrkulacją pożywki oraz w aeroponice z pożywką A-1. Wszystkie pożywki testowane w aeroponicznej uprawie (A-1, A-2 i A-3) powodowały większy wzrost zawartości magnezu w liściach niż w wełnie mineralnej. Największą zawartość Ca w liściach
miały rośliny uprawiane w wełnie mineralnej z recyrkulacją pożywki i aeroponice z zastosowaniem pożywek A-2 i A-3. Rośliny uprawiane w wełnie mineralnej bez recyrkulacji pożywki wykazywały najmniejszą zawartość Ca w liściach, jednak nie wywoływało to
suchej zgnilizny wierzchołkowej (BER) na owocach. Plon i stan odżywienia pomidora w
aeroponicznej uprawie z zastosowaniem pożywki A-1 był podobny jak plon i stan odżywienia roślin uprawianych w wełnie mineralnej bez recyrkulacji z zastosowaniem standardowej pożywki A-2.
Słowa kluczowe: uprawy bezglebowe, żywienie roślin, zawartość składników, fertygacja
Accepted for print: 27.11.2013
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Hortorum Cultus 13(2) 2014